Quantum causal models, faithfulness and retrocausality

Wood and Spekkens (2015) argue that any causal model explaining the EPRB correlations and satisfying no-signalling must also violate the assumption that the model faithfully reproduces the statistical dependences and independences---a so-called "fine-tuning" of the causal parameters; this includes, in particular, retrocausal explanations of the EPRB correlations. I consider this analysis with a view to enumerating the possible responses an advocate of retrocausal explanations might propose. I focus on the response of N\"{a}ger (2015), who argues that the central ideas of causal explanations can be saved if one accepts the possibility of a stable fine-tuning of the causal parameters. I argue that, in light of this view, a violation of faithfulness does not necessarily rule out retrocausal explanations of the EPRB correlations, although it certainly constrains such explanations. I conclude by considering some possible consequences of this type of response for retrocausal explanations

A quantum causal discovery algorithm

Finding a causal model for a set of classical variables is now a well-established task---but what about the quantum equivalent? Even the notion of a quantum causal model is controversial. Here, we present a causal discovery algorithm for quantum systems. The input to the algorithm is a process matrix describing correlations between quantum events. Its output consists of different levels of information about the underlying causal model. Our algorithm determines whether the process is causally ordered by grouping the events into causally-ordered non-signaling sets. It detects if all relevant common causes are included in the process, which we label Markovian, or alternatively if some causal relations are mediated through some external memory. For a Markovian process, it outputs a causal model, namely the causal relations and the corresponding mechanisms, represented as quantum states and channels. Our algorithm provides a first step towards more general methods for quantum causal discovery.Comment: 11 pages, 10 figures, revised to match published versio

Who Learns Better Bayesian Network Structures: Accuracy and Speed of Structure Learning Algorithms

Three classes of algorithms to learn the structure of Bayesian networks from data are common in the literature: constraint-based algorithms, which use conditional independence tests to learn the dependence structure of the data; score-based algorithms, which use goodness-of-fit scores as objective functions to maximise; and hybrid algorithms that combine both approaches. Constraint-based and score-based algorithms have been shown to learn the same structures when conditional independence and goodness of fit are both assessed using entropy and the topological ordering of the network is known (Cowell, 2001). In this paper, we investigate how these three classes of algorithms perform outside the assumptions above in terms of speed and accuracy of network reconstruction for both discrete and Gaussian Bayesian networks. We approach this question by recognising that structure learning is defined by the combination of a statistical criterion and an algorithm that determines how the criterion is applied to the data. Removing the confounding effect of different choices for the statistical criterion, we find using both simulated and real-world complex data that constraint-based algorithms are often less accurate than score-based algorithms, but are seldom faster (even at large sample sizes); and that hybrid algorithms are neither faster nor more accurate than constraint-based algorithms. This suggests that commonly held beliefs on structure learning in the literature are strongly influenced by the choice of particular statistical criteria rather than just by the properties of the algorithms themselves.Comment: 27 pages, 8 figure